Target Holdings Ltd V Redferns

In June of 2014, the appellant disclosed to the firm what he had done and then the firm reported it to the SRA in October 2014. After this occurred the appellant proceeded to make a self-report to the SRA as well. The SRA argued lack of integrity according to the creation of the letter and form. They also alleged that by relining on them the appellant had acted dishonestly. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the appellant guilty of dishonesty but he had also been charged with acting without integrity, and was struck of the roll. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

(Jonathan Morgan ‘Policy reasoning in tort law: the courts, the Law Commission and the critics’ (2009) 125 LQR 215)

Unadulterated Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff's harms are totaled and afterward lessened to mirror his/her commitment to the damage. For instance, if an offended party was granted $10,000 and the judge or jury established that the offended party was 25% in charge of her harm, she would be recompensed $7,500.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

For this assignment, the statement that "The doctrine of estoppel prevents a claimant from going back on a promise and has been described as a ‘shield and not a sword'. Will be evaluated using relevant case law. First looking at the meaning of the doctrine that was developed by Lord Denning. This will then be investigated with case law which looks at the practical application and judgments found in these cases, giving clearer definition and meaning to the doctrine and look at an up to date case to see if and how the principle may have developed. In conclusion, the key points will be summarised and by the evidence provided by the documented case law, evaluate the statement to see if it is true.

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes.

In court proceedings, fair and workable principles are imperative for the effective performance of judges. In light of this, some may excoriate ‘contributory negligence’ for its putative inaccuracy and unfairness; others may perceive it as a valuable and effective means of apportioning justice. With reference to Marien v Gardiner, I will argue that while the notion of assessing damages to account for contributory negligence is fair, it is impossible to accurately make such assessments.

The key concepts of natural justice will be analysed and the principalities that it holds, in addition to investigating authoritative case precedents for examination, scrutinising the doctrine of natural justice in how it operates in common law.

In the case of the Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National1 Lord Phillips stated “I think personally I would have been quite in favour of the OFT looking into bank charges, if I had complete freedom to decide.... but the statute said it was not within their terms of reference”2

The most relevant illustration of a condemnation of this practice is the Brown Jenkinson & Co. Ltd v

Grange claimed the “contributory negligence” to eliminate their liability by saying the Councils did not reasonably implement the contractual and tortious duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. However, that argument was rejected by the court. In relation to this, Rare J found:

‘‘The Master of the Rolls instructed Lord Justice Jackson to ‘review the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation and to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate cost’.

Conlon v Ozolins is arguably one of the most controversial and most significant cases in New Zealand law when it comes to contractual mistake. With a majority judgment, it identifies an intention of the courts to do what is fair in certain circumstances. The outcome of the case is heavily criticised as being wrongly decided because of the ignorance of the objective theory of contract formation, disagreement in regards to the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977, ignorance of separation of powers, the interpretation of mutual mistake, the relief given, the application of estoppel, the effect of agency and the use of dissenting judgments. Although, there are plenty of controversial reasons for a wrongly decided case, I will then argue that the Court of Appeal rightly decided the outcome of the case.